MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
HOT LINKS
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
BOOKS & THINGS
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

Of close-in fields, and suchlike matters

Prem Panicker

For me, the most startling aspect of the Indian win against Guyana the other day was the nature of the field employed by Mohammad Azharuddin during the final overs, when the fielding side was desperately looking for those elusive tailend wickets that would enable them to wrap up the game.

Like, would you believe that Sunil Joshi was bowling to a field of short square leg, leg slip, two slips, gully, silly point and very short mid off - which, with the keeper, means a close cordon of 8 men round the bat. And when did you last see that in Indian cricket? Certainly not since the days of the famed spin troika of Bedi, Chandra and Prasanna.

A contrasting memory is of Johannesburg - when India, poised to win and with just the wickets of Allan Donald and Paul Adams to remove, had just three men round the bat in the final overs. Makes you wonder, doesn't it, just what could have been achieved had there been more of a push on the part of the Indian skipper, more aggression in setting the field?

It is a truism that for spinners - in fact, for any bowler - to bowl aggressively, the field should mirror that aggression. You may be the greatest bowler of outswing in the world, but if as you run up to bowl you see a field-setting of just a keeper and a solitary slip, the subliminal message you get is that the skipper does not really think you are capable of inducing the edge. And that tells on your bowling, blunting the edge of your aggression - ask any quality paceman, or spinner.

By the same token, Ian Chappell, for Dennis Lillee bowling to the English batsmen on a lively Perth wicket, once set a field of five slips, a gully and three leg slips. That is, all nine fielders in the umbrella behind the bat, and just the bowler in front. Looks easy from the batsman's point of view, doesn't it? All he has to do is make sure the ball doesn't go behind him, and there are runs for the taking. But in fact, Lillee ended up running through the England batting lineup - forcing the error from batsman after batsman.

A para ago, I discussed how the sight of an aggressive field placing fires the attacking instincts in a bowler. By the same token, the sight of four or more fielders hovering around the bat tends to make even the best of batsmen think twice - and almost inevitably induces fatal errors.

This is something the Indian captain will have to bear in mind when he leads his side onto the field at Guyana. India has to win, if it wants to square the series - and a spinning wicket alone will not do the job, the bowler has to have the backing of his captain and his fielders if he is to maintain pressure and get wickets.

In past games, it was rather sad to see a slip, silly point, leg slip and square leg doing duty when Anil Kumble bowled, and when Joshi came on, the field turning defensive with just a slip and maybe a short square leg in place - even when an Ambrose or a Walsh was batting. Tendulkar needs to remember that defensive errors can only be forced by aggressive fields.

A passing thought: Ever remember Azhar being this aggressive when he was skipper of the national side?

Friends who watched the India-Guyana match tell me that the umpiring was possitively disastrous - and that several batsmen of the home side, especially in the second innings, looked positively embarassed about remaining in the middle after the men in the coats had turned down appeals for obvious LBW and even "caught" decisions.

Excusable, perhaps, on the grounds that the two officials who did duty where locals and, understandably, inclined to favour their own boys. By "understandable" I am not trying to say that there is justification for umpires, at whatever level, to be biased - merely admitting that it is human nature for officials not out of the top drawer to be less than 100 per cent impartial.

What occasions concern, though, is the realisation that George Sharp of England is one of the two umpires who will do duty at the Bourda when the fifth Test between India and the West Indies begins. Sharp's track record is not exactly impeccable - in fact, when it comes to making totally unjustified decisions on close appeals, Sharp leaves even the likes of his countryman Peter Willey, Australia's Darrell Hair and Steve Randell and India's own S K Bansal far behind.

And adjudicating with him for the crucial Test - and let us make the point that the Guyana Test is crucial not just to India, but for both sides - is Edward Nicholls of Guyana. This is Nicholls' debut as a Test match umpire and, what is more, his total umpiring career spans just 12 first class games in six years, six of those games in the last year.

Hardly the sort of pedigree that inspires confidence in his ability to officiate a crucial Test on a result-oriented wicket, that.

And all this makes you wonder just what the ICC policy is with regard to umpires. They do have a panel, true - but as far as I can see, and I see the likes of Lloyd Barker, Hair, Sharp, Bansal, Willey, Randell and such on that panel, you don't have to have any particular ability, or even integrity, to make it to the panel. Just the support of your country's cricket body will do, apparently.

Isn't it time thought was paid to this aspect of the game? Cricket does not need umpiring controversies, on top of its myriad other problems - and umpiring controversies are what you will get plenty of, thanks to the combination of incompetent officials and increasingly sophisticated television techniques.

It seems to be about time the ICC put together a panel to scrutinise international umpires. This can be done through videotapes of their decisions, and those umpires found consistently biased or incompetent should be dumped from the panel forthwith.

Again, the ICC should consider having match referees and captains of the opposing sides rate the umpiring in each game, and use it as a yardstick to measure the efficacy of the officials on the panel.

And most importantly, I would think that the boards of both countries involved in a tour should discuss and agree upon the panel of officials who are to do duty during the series. Teams like Australia and England are very vocal about umpires when they go on tour, and well ahead of a tour their cricket bodies register protests against officials they think are incompetent.

Sadly, this is something the BCCI, which carries diplomacy to absurd lengths, never does - thus, though Steve Randell has in the past been the subject of an official Indian protest, not a murmur was raised by the BCCI when he was named as part of the panel of umpires standing in South Africa.

It is about time, I would think, for some attention being payed to this crucial aspect of the game - cricket games have become too important, from the point of view of teams, sponsors, advertisers and audience, to be spoilt by incompetent officiating.